September 26, 2011

Instapundit highlights this story from UW—Stout, stressing the threat of criminal charges against a professor who put a quote from the TV show "Firefly" on his office door.

If we're going to talk about this, let's face up to what the quote was: "You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed."

I can't fathom why a teacher would put that on an office door. I mean, I can see that this was a theater professor and it's a vividly theatrical line from a character some people are familiar with. I wonder what the whole story is, specifically, how the school attempted to handle the matter internally and cordially.

Sounds like UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter needs to have her budget cut. NOT as punishment for her colossally bad judgment but because she has illustrated, in the clearest possible way, that she and her department have far too much time (and resources) on their hands.

And then to go after the professor because he had the termerity to call this facsism? I suppose you could say you disagree with his comments has a tad over the top, but to react to that in the manner the UoW did is sort of self confirming facsism.

Any time a citizen behaves in a way that makes it seem like they might be willing to take drastic action on their own behalf, in a way that is independent of the "system" The "system" is going to feel threatened.The system cannot be threatened, because it is the system.

I can't fathom why a teacher would put that on an office door. [...] I wonder what the whole story is, specifically, how the school attempted to handle the matter internally and cordially.

Well, you're a respected, tenured professor in the UW system -- why don't you send e-mail to the involved parties and ask them ... in a cordial manner, of course. I can even suggest the text of the message:

Given that, as Althouse says, this is a highly theatrical quote from a space oater with a cult like following, by a professor in the theater dept., I think we need more context; and as Fred says to lighten up.

btw- How'd you miss the Firefly phenom Althouse? Wheldon and Straczynski created two of the best written, smartest, character-driven story arcs in a scifi TV series in the last twenty years, if not ever.

"Isn't that a stretch? Thinking that the matter would be handled "cordially"?"

By "how the school attempted to handle the matter internally and cordially" I mean the extent to which the school attempted to handle the matter internally and cordially.

I think if it were up to me — if I were his dean — I would want him to take the poster down, but I would talk to him about it. I think if I wasn't able to reach a friendly solution with him, I wouldn't deserve my position of power.

The prof did a riff on a group of Oxford profs in the 60s when some of the campus Maoists started making noises about blowing up classrooms.

The profs placed a small announcement on the relevant bulletin boards reminding said Maoists that said profs had seen action in the Second Global Unpleasantness with such storied organizations as the Long Range Desert Group, Special Air Service, Special Operations Executive, and various Army and Royal Marine Commandos, among others, and were proficient in demolition, unarmed combat, and a variety of firearms.

My wife was teaching at the College of the Holy Cross on 9/11. In the days after, many of her colleagues and students started displaying various-sized American flags/logos on their doors, bulletin boards, etc. I'm sure you all remember what that was like. Needless to say, some Professor was horrified by this display of patriotism and started a jihad against the "militaristic and alienating" displays. Many people were shamed into removing their flags, but a few resisted and even wrote letters to the Editor of the local paper. HC eventually came up with some bullshit "compromise" that stuck flags, etc. in the same category as Math Club Pizza Party flyers, with all the same restrictions and limits. When I saw it in the paper, the first thing I did was ask my wife why the hell she hadn't mentioned it to me. She pointed to my flushed face and the "...vein sticking out of your forehead..."as two good reasons. Anyway, I'm still pissed thinking about it.

The film Serenity begins with a voiceover as a teacher is giving a history lesson:

Earth that was could no longer sustain our numbers, we were so many. We found a new solar system, dozens of planets and hundreds of moons. Each one terraformed, a process taking decades, to support human life, to be new Earths. The Central Planets formed the Alliance. Ruled by an interplanetary parliament, the Alliance was a beacon of civilization. The savage outer planets were not so enlightened and refused Alliance control. The war was devastating, but the Alliance's victory over the Independents ensured a safer universe. And now everyone can enjoy the comfort and enlightenment of true civilization.

The question arises why people would fight this, why they wouldn't wish to be "more civilized". The teacher frames this as, "With so many social and medical advances we can bring to the independents, why would they fight against us?"

The answer: "We meddle. People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

It's enlightening when art imitates life. When life imitates art, it's sometimes kind of depressing.

Sounds like it's trying to be a "tough guy" type quote, along the lines of Clint Eastwood. On it's own, you'd have to struggle mightily to find any credible threat in there. Is there anything in the Prof's history that would suggest a propensity to violence? More likely the school just screwed up, particularly in light of their reaction to the next, even more clearly protected poster. Idiots.

I'm a big sci-fi fan. I tried to watch it but they kept moving the time and I was never able to catch it in sequence. I gave up trying to chase it all over the place.

Same thing happens with some current shows that I would like to watch. We set the dvr to record and they either move the program after a few episodes so we have to reprogram....OR even more insidious....they set the show to lapse over a few minutes into the next hour and you miss the conclusion or last 3 minutes of the show. PRICKS!!

In my proposed reform of the UW system, UW-Stout would be closed. There is already another 4-year UW campus 45 minutes to the east and west. SE Wisconsin doesn't have that 4-year UW school to population ratio.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Speaking of which, Terra Nova starts tonight. Here's hoping they come up with something actually entertaining and not ham-fisted, over-stuffed with pc bullshit Scant hope of that…they start off talking about a world killed by “our greed”…you KNOW they’re going to be all about how we destroyed ourselves (and deserved it).

"... In context, the speaker is assuring another that there is no need to fear that he might ambush him.

Even without having seen the show, I would have thought that was clear from the phrasing..."

Yeah, that pretty well sums it up.

Yeah, well, that's all true, but for someone who has never watched the show and hasn't a clue about the context, it does seem to contain a threat as well. And that might be the problem with it to someone. The threat of physical violence, gun violence, some people get edgy.

What kind of stuff does roesch-voltaire put up on his door? Glossy NPR pledge drive poster signed by Daniel Schorr and Nina Totenberg? Memorable quotations and deep thoughts from Bob Herbert? Inquiring minds want to know.

yo Squatty the stupid. That's the payroll classification yokel, not the ranking as Ive said numerous times. Then youve never had a Fed job and you're just too dim to understand the point. Stick to yr fave wicca sci-fi shows, trash

That's not even in the top 10 lines from Firefly/Serenity I'd have on my door. However, even shorn of context (instead of being, you know, printed on a poster showing the character who says it, which should give you a hint it's a quote), the line does nothing to evoke threat. It's a reassuring line, one that says "I'm a straight shooter; if we do have a disagreement, you'll see me coming, and I will give you a fair shot". This is apparently not something the University administration believes in.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)“E-grade” isn’t that the group the baby advertises for? So the Small Pathetic Voice is a polymath, an intellectual giant, a power lifter AND an expert on government/MOS designators, now…

How about posting the NYT obit of JFK? Or for real fun, MLK? But as UW-Stout is an institution of higher learning you could post the old standby that is guaranteed to arouse intellectuals, "the Bill of Rights' heh.

Many of you seemed to have not read and understood the last sentence: "And you'll be armed."

Let's see, the UVa shooter, and others more recent. Hello! McFly!

Clearly, this Theater Professor is closer to Tolkien than anything you can imagine. Says Faramir "I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."

Prof Miller is telling you that he will stand his ground and defend civilization, and you mutter darkly.

What you fear, is the coming vassalage of yourselves to the warlords and barbarians, and that you will not have the moral courage to defend this civilization. And he rubbed your nose in it.

(As for the police chief, she's acting like a typical bureaucrat. We pay her to perform a mission; Prof Miller is stating quite boldly that he has lost confidence in the Chief. The Chief is defending the organization against threats to its existence.)

They could disarm the entire race sector of political correctness in the first episode by having the colony leader tell them that, "This is it. Forget all the bullshit about skin color because we're all hear together and our grandchildren's grandchildren are all going to be a light coffee color anyway. Drop it now."

"Is there any public space less tolerant of free speech than the modern university?"

Maybe the modern airport, but they're pretty close.

"Is there any public space that should be more tolerant than a modern university?"

Depends on the purpose of the modern university. There are plenty of folks who would disagree with the idea that the university exists to air different ideas. At my alma mater, for instance, the history department rejects the idea that conservatives can teach history.

So, if I hang a poster of Carrie Fisher from Empire Strikes Back with the quote "I'd just as soon kiss a Wookie", does that mean I'm into beastiality?

Or does it simply mean I'm a geeky fan?

Those are the types of questions administrators and police should be asking themselves. The whole point of being aware of threatening language is to be aware of the need to interpret whether the language is genuinely threatening or not. Unless there's other behavior with this professor that's not making the news, then movie or TV show quotes are normally not in the "genuinely threatening" category, certainly not in the absence of other behavior.

Human beings have discretion. Merely reacting to words is turning a human into an algorithm. And doing so is giving up the entire advantage of having human judgement in play in these situations. The lesson here is that the people involved need to apply their judgement to this and honestly evaluate whether it's a genuine threat, instead of taking the easy way out and just point out actionable words. Not doing so is the epitome of reducing ones self into a drone.

Not sure if anyone has answered Althouse's question yet so I will try....

The quote is really just an expression of "chivalry" or "anti-violence" from the main character of the show who follows a recognized code of civalry and justice. The character is implying from the phrase that he will not kill an unarmed man that he has beaten or captured so easily....

There are probably hundreds of similar quotes from more refined literary sources that the professor could have used such as Shakespeare or Homer, but the professor chose this one.

Maybe if the professor put up:

"Thou shall not kill;"

the campus would order it removed since it uses the word kill (and is also religious expression)

@ poor J,can't you tell Scott is toying with you? As one who has held GS, WG, O and E grades and military rank,some at the same time, please accept the fact you are commenting on something, 'above your pay grade', he he he.

Raf: In context, the speaker is assuring another that there is no need to fear that he might ambush him.

Even without having seen the show, I would have thought that was clear from the phrasing.

Right; here's a larger quote:

Simon: I'm trying to put this as delicately as I can. How do I know you won't kill me in my sleep?Mal: You don't know me, son, so let me explain this to you once. If I ever kill you, you'll be awake. You'll be facing me. And you'll be armed.Simon: Are you always this sentimental?Mal: Had a good day.

Too bad it ever started its run to begin with. Awful stuff. Can we please have MORE badass, tougher than nails women warrior characters? Seriously, we've got a veritable dearth going here.

I would have agreed with you two weeks ago but last Friday “Nikita” returned for its second season and I also watched the premier of the US version of “Prime Suspect.” Definitely more physical than the UK original and not afraid to take a punch to get the job done. Also, I don’t know if anyone else watched “Torchwood” but Gwen Cooper has definitely gone the badass route (brought down a helicopter with an RPG in the series 4 premier).

If it had only been the Firefly poster, I might possibly be able to potentially see the side of the authorities.

However, when they went after the replacement anti-fascism poster, they made it absolutely clear that they're just assholes whose employment in a position of responsibility by any school should constitute grounds for immediate revocation of accreditation.

The question arises why people would fight this, why they wouldn't wish to be "more civilized". The teacher frames this as, "With so many social and medical advances we can bring to the independents, why would they fight against us?"

I always thought it would be interesting if Joss (maybe this would have happened in later seasons) had shown the perspective of someone who believed in Alliance on fought for them during the war. Perhaps we might have found out that the “Independents” were practicing slavery or exploiting underage girls or some other reprehensible practice that the Alliance felt that they were morally justified in overruling local rule. Sort of like that famous British governor of India who threatened to hang anyone who burned windows as part of their “tradition.”

Another possibility is that the Independent worlds were basically the equivalent of failed states rife with widespread piracy or other criminal acts (we see signs of that now) and the Alliance realized that peaceful coexistence was impossible in the absence of law and order which the Independents showed no signs of establishing on their own.

Or a third possibility (in keeping with the western theme) is that majority of people living on the Independent worlds wanted to join the Alliance and get the benefits of civilization (sort of like people living in a territory wanting Statehood) but the criminal element who had free reign because they had the most guns opposed it (sort like “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” or “Deadwood”). In which case the “Browncoats” may not have been the popular resistance movement that Mal would have liked to believe.

Sort of like that famous British governor of India who threatened to hang anyone who burned windows as part of their “tradition.”

I think that it was "widows", not "windows", that he didn't like being burned. I can understand either one, in context. But, I do think that that 19th century British chivalry would have been more sympathetic of windows being burned than widows after their husbands had died.

For me, being a guy, I am thinking that burning widows might be a great way to solve our social security and medicare demographics problem. After all, women live longer than men, and tend to marry older men, so just think of this as balancing the budget by eliminating the Social Security widow's benefit.

CHUCK LORRE (producer of 2 and a half men and Big Bang) PRODUCTIONS, Vanity Card #326

"In the near future, we will see brain scan technology that can determine, without fail, if someone is telling the truth. Shortly thereafter, we will be able to buy mobile devices that perform the same task on the fly. In other words, we are on the verge of having all of our conversations constantly and instantly monitored for veracity. This would then spawn a counter-technology comprised of personal mind shields that keep oneself from being scanned (the use of which would, of course, imply that one is keeping secrets). The end result? Universal honesty, initially as a result of the duress of surveillance, will become the norm. Then, over time, this mode of thinking, communicating and behaving will become second nature. This will usher in the dawn of a new civilization. After thousands of years of human suffering, world peace and the long-fabled 'good will towards all men' will have finally arrived. The end of lying and cheating will also mark the end of scripted entertainment. So, you know, there'll be a downside."

Well, not to nit pick here, but you need to keep in mind that the approval was apparently expedited primarily because President Obama had already scheduled a publicity event to publicly disclose the funding to build the second plant, and it was thought that even the Secretary of Energy couldn't tell him "no" at that point.

VP Biden, in one of his rare moments of lucidity, apparently warned that the WH needed to be kept abreast there for just this reason - so that the Administration didn't get itself in this sort of trouble.

The ground breaking of Fab 2 was also apparently also expedited for another Presidential photo op - a fab that apparently was never really needed.

So, just to be accurate here, while the money did benefit a big Obama bundler, and that may have been part of why the company was funded, it appears that the big reason that the half billion dollars was authorized to be flushed down the toilet, despite the DoE knowing the proposal was a loser, was because announcing it was a photo op for the President.

At least the poor man has some recourse to howl "violation of 1st amendment rights", since he works for a state university. If I put something like that up on my office door (in the legal department of a public company), either it would be down within the hour or security would be escorting me to my car and I would have no job. If they forced my neighbor to remove the cross from her desk, why would I expect different treatment? Expressions of free speech aren't any more welcome in Corporate America than they are among the useful idiots in academia. If you need the paycheck, you keep your opinions to yourself. I need the paycheck, ergo I have no political or religious opinions at work.

It is set in a world where AL Gore and the eco-terrorists have destroyed the earth and they have to send colonist back in time to live in the time of the dinosaurs.

The hard part for me to buy into this premise is that they would pick the time of the dinosaurs. The Cretaceous Maybe they don't have a choice. But if they do....it was a bad one.

However....one of my fav sci-fi fantasy series has people going into the Pliocene era which was climatically a paradise. Similar to today but slightly warmer. No nasty dinosaurs to deal with.

Probably going to record this one, and hope like Scott that they don't eff it up with political correctness. I have some hope for the first several episodes but it will probably all be downhill from there.

Hey, Mal meant he would be fair to his enemies, and face them directly. So, this prof. means to encourage dissent, even if he knocks down yr idea in the end. It's metaphor, not some literal violent intent thing, folks.

Thorley wants to know if perhaps the Alliance were actually the good guys.

On the outer worlds, there were lots of small settlements, by people with non-standard ideas of how to live their lives, surrounded by lots of empty spaces. Val kept the trade routes open. Even ascetics and Quakers need spare parts and trade goods.

So I reckon that most settlements didn't get much in the way of either visitors, or crime. But being isolated, they had to defend themselves.

I bet there were circuit riders of judges, attorneys, and marshalls. But these guys had to market themselves, based on their reputations for fair and equitable administration of the common law.Distances too vast, settlements too sparse, surplus value not large enough, and no social contract consensus, to support a permanent Alliance constabulary and justice system and Warren parasites.

The Alliance just got tired of having to bend its own laws, and have its authority either ignored or neutralized, every time it had to deal with these outlanders.

And, Shepherd Book was the Alliance insider, a still high status guy who chucked it all for a spiritual journey and the liberty of the outer worlds. He left the alliance on good terms, but was able to coexist and be simpatico with the outworlders.

I wonder what the whole story is, specifically, how the school attempted to handle the matter internally and cordially. [my emphasis]

This is from the article in question:

"On September 16, UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter emailed Miller, notifying him that she had removed the poster and that 'it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing.' " [my emphasis]

That doesn't sound very cordial to me, Professor. Nor does Chief of Police Walter's response to Miller's Email sound very cordial:

"Walter responded that 'the poster can be interpreted as a threat by others and/or could cause those that view it to believe that you are willing/able to carry out actions similar to what is listed.'"

And note that Prof. Miller was threatened with criminal charges if he attempted to repost the article.

No, there was nothing "cordial" about the university at all.

Is there a point where the schools that make up the University of Wisconsin system come to grips with the first amendment? It has been on the books for a while, you know. Maybe the Madison campus would be a good place to start.

Tari, you got that right. Maybe a Theater Professor can do it, but corporate wage-earners, no way.

In business everything must be focused on getting the teams to work together, keep the conversations about the business, and get the product out the door. Postings on walls and doors are for business communication purposes, idiosyncratic personal statements that can be easily misunderstood are not helpful to the shared purpose of our work.

That's why we have to guard even more academia as a haven of free and diverse speech. We want kernels of truth in all the sizes and shapes, to resist the sifting and winnowing so beloved by faux orthodoxy.

"On September 16, UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter emailed Miller, notifying him that she had removed the poster and that 'it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing.' " [my emphasis]

That doesn't sound very cordial to me, Professor. Nor does Chief of Police Walter's response to Miller's Email sound very cordial:

I disagree, in the actual emails the Chief of Police comes across as the more calm, more professional and more cordial of the two.

"I always thought it would be interesting if Joss (maybe this would have happened in later seasons) had shown the perspective of someone who believed in Alliance on fought for them during the war."

That would have been nice. Joss has said in interviews that he himself (being the liberal that he is) was always more of an Alliance man. I think the libertarian influence in the show came mostly from Tim Minear. Mal was always like the tragic cowboy in the '10s, slowly losing the frontier to civilization. Inevitably, his kind was going to come to an end. I imagine in later seasons we'd see that. I have a feeling Mal would not have come to a very happy end.

I can't fathom why a teacher would put that on an office door. I mean, I can see that this was a theater professor and it's a vividly theatrical line from a character some people are familiar with.

I’m with you that it’s a strange quote to put up on a door to at work. It doesn’t seem to serve any purpose other than as a way to garner attention for the professor which makes me suspect that this was a publicity stunt.

The Police chief said that others might perceive it as a threat. But that's only if those so-called others can't critically read. In which case, why are they even in college? Don't you have to be, like, intelligent and educated to get into college?

And second. Notice the case change, from "I removed" to "we ... believed". The Chief was less than honest in her first e-mail. The first e-mail implied a personal, spur-of-the-moment drive-by decision, and the second e-mail admitted a collective decision-making process, of which Professor Miller was unaware and did not have a chance to contribute.

Professors are not used to having functionaries stifle their speech, and react primitively. Especially since, being a tenured professor, it is free speech that is his only product.

That would have been nice. Joss has said in interviews that he himself (being the liberal that he is) was always more of an Alliance man. I think the libertarian influence in the show came mostly from Tim Minear. Mal was always like the tragic cowboy in the '10s, slowly losing the frontier to civilization. Inevitably, his kind was going to come to an end. I imagine in later seasons we'd see that. I have a feeling Mal would not have come to a very happy end.

I always thought that Mal was a bit closer to Jesse James (both fought on the losing side of a civil war and turned to a life of crime afterwards). When you think about it Mal isn’t particularly “libertarian” in the sense that I think libertarians like to promote their ideology (e.g. against the initiation of force and fraud), he’s basically a robber and a thief who steals from others to support his lifestyle so he doesn’t have to settle down for a more “honest” living. Yes, sometimes he takes on passengers or transports cargo but it seems that more often than not, he’s robbing ships, trains or hospitals.

That doesn’t mean I won’t root for him the same way I’ll root for Captain Jack Sparrow or SAMCRO ;).

wiki:In one scene of the movie, Harry Callahan ... goes into a diner for a morning cup of coffee. When Callahan discovers a robbery in the diner, he kills the robbers in a shootout. However, a surviving robber grabs the fleeing waitress Loretta ... holds his gun to her head, and threatens to shoot. Instead of backing off, Harry points his .44 Magnum revolver into the man's face at point-blank range and dares him to shoot, saying with clenched teeth and in his characteristic rough grumble, "Go ahead, make my day," meaning that if the robber attempts to harm Loretta in any way, Harry would be happy to dispatch the robber. At the end of the film, Harry, again, says "Come on, make my day" just before shooting Mick the Rapist, who aims his stolen shotgun at Jennifer Spencer.

I like a few reality shows -- "Survivor," "Project Runway" -- and I like the occasional comedy -- "Curb Your Enthusiasm. And I watch some sports with Meade. I watch a little news and "The Daily Show" and "Colbert" occasionally. I like some documentaries.

I'm not against TV. I think TV is great, better than movies. I"m just not into the hour-long dramas. I'm too impatient and too busy. I watch TV in a nonserious, scattered way.

Re: Terra Nova ... I hope they've bought the rights to this from the estate of the late Poul Anderson. If not, I hope his heirs can borrow some flesh-eating lawyers from Harlan Ellison.

Anderson's science fiction story "Wildcat" has as its premise a colony in the distant past, 100 million years ago. Time travel works only into the past, not the future, and only in very large fixed jumps. The colonists supposedly are drilling for oil deposits that existed back then but no longer do in the present. But the colony is suspiciously large for an oil drilling enterprise ...

It turns out that "what everyone knows" about time travel is partially a lie. Time travel into the future is possible ... and in much smaller jumps. An expedition 100 years into the future has found an Earth sterilzed by nuclear war ... and analysis of the radioactive decay products reveals that the war was/will be approximately two years from the "departure date" of the colonists. The colony is actually a last-ditch effort to save some remnant of the human race.

"Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave."

- One of the most conservative AND libertarian lines in the history of movies.

Who does everything he *can* do? Everyone chooses. The question is: Why choose that? I can't fathom why he would think that is a good choice.

Ah, the Socratic Method in action!

No, the question is: Who has the right to choose for other people against their wishes?

Perhaps you can't fathom why he would think that is a good choice, but fortunately that decision isn't left to you. I'm sure there are people who can't fathom why you would choose to worship in the wrong religion -- or worse, to not worship in any religion at all. Aren't you glad that administrators at UW-Madison are forbidden to force their choices upon you?

God bless "The Big Bang Theory" and "Hawaii Five O" and "Ice Road Truckers" and "Pawn Stars" and "Poker After Dark."

You give props to Ice Road Truckers but not Deadliest Catch? Who's the pinko commie now? Crabbing in the Bering Sea in February is soooo much more ballsy than sitting in a heated cab listening to old CW McCall songs. A trucker's biggest dilemma, after trying to decide where to stop for lunch, is trying to figure out when to downshift.

Oh, and if Joss were planning on portraying the Alliance as the good-guys at some point he likely shouldn't have had them experimenting on little girls against the will or knowledge of her parents or employing assassins in blue gloves that make Darth Vader's wanton killing of bystanders look restrained.

The Alliance has medicine and culture and all sorts of good things, but Simon can't even convince his parents to check up on their only daughter because it will hurt their social standing if they make a fuss.

The economy doesn't work, of course. Even if fuel is next to free they never carry enough cargo or load enough food even for themselves.

I sort of expect the economy of Terra Nova to fail, too. They'll have some fields and green houses and make a big deal about how they're growing their own food, but it will be a token and no one will spend much time doing it.

Maybe I should give it a chance but every time one of these shows comes out (Falling Skies?) where everyone is supposedly put in a survival situation no one bothers to do the math. (In Falling Skies they've got 200 refugees and send *a* pickup truck to get supplies from a Costco-type place. Were they only intending to feed, oh, 20?)

They should adapt Steve Stirling's "Dies the Fire" and on... but they'd have to show it on HBO. He does the math and so do his characters, "Do we take this busload of elementary kids with us and risk starving us all to death or do we leave them?"

Joss Whedon didn't create Bones. It's based on an already established character and books.

David Boreanaz was in Angel, another Whedon show, but Bones wasn't Whedon. Plus, Boreanaz's character is very pro-America and pro-Catholic. But the show totally jumped the shark last year, so I agree in not recommending it.

Oh, jeebus, Althouse! You're willfully ignoring the many comments on this thread that explain it to you!

Mal Reynolds has a chivalric code of conduct that states that he will not kill and unarmed man, but if he does mean to kill him, it will be face to face in a fair fight. What about this is "unfathomable" to you?

It is the entire basis of Western civilization's concept of fair play and mercy! What don't you get? We deploy entire armies and navies under the assumption of this code, and we've got a pretty good record of sticking to it. It's why we have the UCMJ.

Again, what don't you get about this poster and its significance?

They are stirring words to live by, and they don't incite to killing, but rather to restraint and mercy.

The poster issue itself seems to be about who chooses the meaning of art. Here, the quote was seen as being potentially offensive based on a non-contextual reading. In the context itself, the quote basically is arguing against murder.

If art is censored based on potential offense caused by noncontextual misunderstanding, then what art can survive? Only that which is sanctioned by the governing institution? And if that is the case, then what is the point of art at all?

Tell me Trooper are you and Debbie in tough touch with your own personal enjoyment while watching TV? Funny guy you. What goes on in your office,or in your head, shouldn't be on the door, unless it is the office hours.

I just asked my wife what it was. She reminded me that for us the final straw was all the sexual tension being resolved by a barely implied, and easily missed, sexual liaison that happened entirely between scenes, which resulted in her becoming pregnant. And now they're all giddy about raising a child together this season.

But, if I recall most of last season was filled with all sorts of stumbles and frustrations, compounded by being compared to the significantly better writing on Castle.

I think that my last straw was the psychologist fellow becoming more prominent and better accepted and constantly saying stupid, political things.

He could do that when Bones was prepared to go all Aspie on him and (I just totally spaced the FBI guy's name) whatshisface ignored what he said. It was more balanced, I think. Several different and conflicting points of view were expressed.

Synova, I also was getting increasingly irritated with artsy gal and her science guy husband. So contrived all the way through, but it has become increasingly like it was a show written by 13 year olds, using early teen understandings of relationships, romance and whatnot.

I've seen better writing on CW shows. The actual main plots stayed good, but they kept wandering away and getting to entirely silly relationships.